ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00032462
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Parties | Juris Akmentins | Compass Group Services |
Representatives |
| Aleksandra Tiilikainen IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 27 of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997 | CA-00043066-001 | 14/03/2021 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 28/02/2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015following the referral of the complaint) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.
Background:
This matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. In the course of the hearing, four witnesses for the employer and the worker gave their evidence under affirmation. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submitted that the respondent did not pay him the correct rate of pay on 27 August 2020. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submitted that as the complainant was absent without leave for the preceding fortnight, the complainant was not entitled to be paid for that fortnight. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The complainant confirmed that his complaint related to the non-receipt of his pay due to him on 27 August 2020. The complainant submitted his complaint on 14 March 2021 more than six months after the event complained of occurred. The complainant accepted these facts but offered no excuse for this. Section 41(6) & (8) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 state: 6) Subject to subsection (8), an adjudication officer shall not entertain a complaint referred to him or her under this section if it has been presented to the Director General after the expiration of the period of 6 months beginning on the date of the contravention to which the complaint relates. … (8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.
Having regard to the timeframe of the submission of the complaint, I find that the complainant did not submit the complaint within the timeframe envisaged under the Act. Additionally, I find that no exceptional circumstances were outlined such as to allow for consideration of an extension of time. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Having considered the written and oral submissions made in relation to this complaint and further to my findings above, my decision is that the complaint was not made within the timeframes envisaged in the Acts, and under Section 41(6) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015, I am precluded from considering this matter further. |
Dated: 29th March 2022
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
Payment of Wages Act - Workplace Relations Act – timeframe – out of time. |